Debate Forum - Week 8 - Guaranteed Income
Debate partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Please visit the debate frequently as we need voters!
The winner of last weeks debate is @shai-hulud with 6 votes, making two wins in a row and @jet.wilda has won the steem for contributing a vote to the winning post! Congratulations. The debate for week 7 was a tough one, but I'm glad that we had lots of participation. Well done.
Week 8 debate topic - Guaranteed Income
There are many jurisdictions around the world that are either talking about or have actually implemented a guaranteed income scheme to help deal with poverty. The idea is to give a guaranteed income to those individuals who fall below a specific income threshold to ensure that they earn a minimum income each month. The idea is that it would save on red tape and bureaucracy costs and would actually be cheaper to implement than most welfare schemes of the past. What do you think?
This weeks Debate Forum question: Will a guaranteed income actually help people who live in poverty while saving the government money or is this idea problematic and will cause more harm than good?
The rules of this debate:
- Keep comments on topic.
- No personal attacks, name calling or yelling.
- Be respectful, thoughtful and articulate with your thoughts and views.
- Participants can ask questions but lets limit the discussion threads to three deep. That means the individual can respond to the question posed and then the thread must stop.
- The post with the highest vote count will win the debate. Highest value will not be used to determine the winner but will naturally reward commenters who make excellent points. That way everyone's vote counts the same when it comes to the final prize. I will break any ties.
- Debate deadline is 10pm MST January 20, 2018. At which point I will then tabulate the results and send the prize to the winner.
- Curators are encourage to vote as well, giving higher percentage upvotes for well thought out and written responses, lower or no vote for anybody who breaks the rules or fails to articulate their position.
- Winner will receive all the SBD that I receive from this post, complements of the curators who are participating and partially sponsored by @FullTimeGeek.
- Out of the winning post, the voter on the bottom of the list with 100% upvote will receive all the Steem from the debate post, to encourage more voting!
- I am the moderator and as such I disqualify myself from winning. My decisions are final. I will not tolerate covert or overt violence in this debate. Please keep it respectful and on topic.
- For this debate, I will disqualify those who fail to follow the spirit of the debate.
The spirit of this contest is to engage the readers with thoughtful debate and to explore ideas that are not commonly made available to the average Jane and Joe. I also want to see if this is a good way to get low steem users participating and being rewarded with steem to help them build influence on this platform. Readers are reminded that all comments are the opinions of those who are posting and as such it is your responsibility to do your own research and make up your own mind on these topics. There is no write or wrong answer. Let us debate this issue with respect, honour, dignity, heart and intelligence.
I am now on steemit.chat, user id @wwf. If you want to private chat, you can contact me there.
Past debates
Week 7 - Sectarianism & Dogma - won by @shai-hulud
Week 6 - Spirit vs Letter of the law - won by @shai-hulud
Week 5 - Indigenous Reconciliation - won by @dubem-eu
Week 4 - Net Neutrality - won by @skycae
Week 3 - Geoengineering - won by @cheneats
Week 2 - Government sponsored vaccination programs - won by @cheneats
Week 1 - Fixing government vs self-governance - won by @yulem
Ok so it’s time to let my inner paranoid conspiracy voice free.
From the off, i believe it’s guaranteed to be a complete disaster, not for the government, but for the people.
This is a long term plan to get more control of the masses. It will only last for 7 years (all debts and contracts seem to run on a seven year cycle) before the government will want all recipients chipped or the payment will be removed. At this point in time, many families and individuals will be reliant upon the payment to make ends meet and will have no choice but to be chipped.
An example of this has happened in Australia, the government last year insisted that it would be mandatory for all children to be vaccinated or part of the child care allowance (approx $2.5k per child per year) would be removed. This was basically blackmailing the poor to comply. If you still refused to vaccinate after the payment ceased, some schools would refuse an un-vaccinated child and you could be threatened with court and prison. Some people went to court, i don’t think anyone won, and then they withdrew most of the payment anyway. To conclude the example, Government won and poor people lost.
Also, we know the money has to come from somewhere, so income tax will have to rise to cover the cost, and you will be told "don’t worry you will get most of it back when you receive the payment", and people will believe that it will cost them little or nothing and will not object. Over time contributions will be required to increase to cover the costs, and the payments will stagnate and not rise with inflation.
Those paying into the system will start to question why? Why do i go to work when i can sit on my ass watching TV all day and still have the same amount of money left at the end of the week? People will start to quit their jobs.
Propaganda will be used. If you are against basic income, then you hate poor people. You are bad and government is good. Government only wants to help. If you can work but don't, then you too hate poor people because your draining all the hard earned money the government has raised to help the poor.
Then more control will follow, if you’re not working, but are physically capable of work, then the payments will be stopped unless you start to work for government programs – first 10hr per week then 20hr per week until you realise the government “owns you” the end.
We the minority that believe in community, self reliance and freedom are outnumbered by those that want big government. In a democratic society, we lose. If your still in the matrix, take the money and get yourself, family and friends as self reliant as possible so that when the time comes for you to be chipped, you can give them the “bird”. Stay free, stay safe and don’t get chipped.
I agree that government will ALWAYS overstep its mandate and try to force measures on people like the vaccines for money example you highlighted.
UBI distributes the tax (especially natural resource taxes) to the people instead of centralizing the expenditure in Government hands. UBI has the unique attribute in that it does not allow government to make moral judgements. Its a claim it if you want system, so as long as that stays in place the government will be restricted in its ability to refuse you.
For the record I am 100% for self reliance and I have been off grid water, elec and some food for years. I just think that the redistribution to lower the extreme effects of poverty on the individual and society is a worthwhile investment.
As with all these approaches the devil will always be in the detail, and I will never get chipped ; )
Would you contemplate the idea of using that money to return people to the land, provide tools and training with the end goal being independence rather than paying out money to address immediate needs? A phased approach may be necessary to address immediate needs but long term resulting in people returning to the land and building independence. That would require that the government then step out of the way at some point.
I don't know that it is possible to have the say what the money will be spent on without getting the government involved which I am against. I think the people will make better decisions than the government on how to spend it
Your point about the money being used "to address immediate need " is a difficult one. I am sure some people will waste it and some will use it buy food they need for the day. I am equally sure that others will use it use it to help themselves get through school or buy solar panels and water tanks.
I think rather than paying people to get back to the land the government should stop making it so hard for people to do so especially when it comes to policies that encourage mega farms over sustainable farms and ridiculous amount of land owned by the state and churches.
i love the idea of the money being used for people to return to the land. Unfortunately government is actively targeting those that wish to do so and i don't think they will let their little tax payers walk away easily. Hopefully i will be in a position to help others when the time comes, and i will continue to prepare for that eventuality. i think if we take the money and use it to help others that wish to return to the land, it's money well spent.
I agree. If the government was REALLY interested in resolving the question of poverty, they would be returning the people to the land, teaching independence and even provide the tools if necessary. Their job is to put themselves out of a job! Well written.
Permaculture + earthships = the world I want to live in.
Return the people to the land is the best possible move forward
Agreed. That is the path we chose over 10 years ago to become self-sufficient in our efforts to self-govern. Working well so far!
yes on so many levels!
I think some people are getting confused between UBI and welfare as it exists in other countries. UBI is for all citizens of a country, everyone gets it even if you are working. It is independent of income, so even the rich will get the payment. There will be no discrimination on who receives the payment.
i followed the experiment conducted in Finland and all the feedback from the 2000 or so people was that it had a positive impact on their lives and according to the feedback people still went to work and looked for jobs, they didn't quit and sit around all day. The choice of Finland to run this type of experiment, was a good one. The Fins have a positive help the government mindset and don't mind paying over 50% of their income in TAX.
I too looked into the Finland project and the 2000 people they gave UBI to was the unemployed. So I'm not sure where you are getting your data from to suggest that it goes to everyone, no matter how rich or poor.
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/jan/12/money-for-nothing-is-finlands-universal-basic-income-trial-too-good-to-be-true
The Finish experiment was with unemployed people yes, but it was recognised as being against the law because it was biased. Roope Mokka of the think tank Demos Helsinki said "Finland actually had to pass a law to ensure that they were not in violation of the constitution, “because all the constitutions of democratic countries in the world say that you have to treat people equally"This experiment, however, is not a test of UBI, in that it’s not actually universal. It’s only for unemployed people. “I think what we’re experimenting with now is called partial basic income,” says Mokka. “This is of course a limited experiment. I don’t know how relevant it is, because a lot of groups are missing.” If so, then in a future test, basic income will also have to be given to people who are already employed, to see if they quit or change".
jobs.https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-finnish-experiment/
Roope Mokka of the think tank Demos Helsinki
Wikipedia - UBI:- Payments does not require the recipient to work or look for work, and is independent of any other income.[2][3][4]
This is a topic that we have discussed here at Cedarville. The general consensus seems to be that a basic income could be a good thing if we use it to make ourselves more self sufficient. You cannot buy solar panels or seeds or batteries without money, so the money is necessary to start. Its a sad fact. That seems to be what the community thinks.
It seems that a basic income could be useful in giving people a step up and allowing them to start on their path to self governance and self sufficiency, however if it used in other ways then it obviously would create a lot of dependence on that money and therefore on the government or state.
One thing that pops into my mind is that in the ideal world people should be able to live comftorably without working their asses off to survive, and this would allow people to pursue what really interests them and contribute to the world in very valuable ways. In this case, maybe a basic income could help, but at the same time in this ideal world maybe people would not need money to live at all!
Before I started to really read what you were saying @wwf, I was thinking that basic income sounds like a pretty good idea. It would keep everyone from being homeless and starving at least. Now, I think I know better.
People would become doubly reliant on the state as it is now. I do not think as it is now people would be responsible-thinking enough to pour these government given resources into freedom. Maybe a few would join us, but there would they stop accepting those payments?
And what about the requirements for getting this government given income? Who would get it, you would definately need to prove that you are poor and canadian, and would they allow it to go towards solar panels and seeds? What would that require of us? I think that quite a few poor people would be desperate enough to agree to pretty much any conditions if that meant they could live well and not struggle to survive, even my own mom would probably. If it meant that she did not have to work 2 jobs to pay rent, then she would probably sign on that with strings attatched. It would probably be created with the idea of dependence built in!
So, what is the solution then, if everyone still needs money to survive but they don't want to get it from the government and they don't want to work at an evil corperation to get it? What if they are not lucky enough to have land or resources or opportunity?
I think at this point the people, and not the state, should step in. What if people independently pooled their resources to help lift people out of this state dependent state, with no strings attatched?
We basically will be pooling our resources for the same purpose if the government goes through with this, except in the form of tax and with many strings attatched! This seemingly simple solution of a basic income is not going to solve the issues we are facing as society, it probably will just exasperate them!
The solution might just be independently organized and built on the foundations of a giving economy and self-governence. Steemit might even be part of the solution, because on here life is content! Could we use decentralized blockchain technology to lift people out of poverty and servitude?
Honestly the solution needs a lot of thought, because at this point the problems we are facing is complicated. Basic income is not going to solve the real issues, just make them stronger. Basic income is too basic lol. We need to independently organize solutions using our own genius, and not rely on the state to solve these issues of poverty by creating more dependence, and in essense, more poverty of spirit.
@gardenofeden is a terrific example of how to spread the wealth without the governments help!
I agree with you, this is not addressing the root causes of poverty and if anything, is only supporting and augmenting poverty as a result. People can spend their guaranteed income how they please. Some may just use it to free themselves. If they do, then their insight, determination and skill will serve them well. I'm not convinced that the majority will do that though. I think your exploration is sobering and accurate. <3 Well done.
I support universal basic income with one specific catch.
Why I support it:
1 UBI provides "Escape" from traumatic living situations
Example: abusive spouse who pays the bills.
2 It provides social safety net to people who have disabilities that go unrecognized/supported
Example Ptsd, childhood survivors of trauma, alcoholics, addicts who are having difficulties adjusting to “Normal Society”
3 Discourages desperation crime - If you are in an extreme situation you may do extreme things
Hungry/sick kids will drive people to extreme actions. Addiction too
4 Efficient use of natural-resource rents
The rents earned from the extraction of natural resources taxation should be redirected to the people as they bear the costs of extraction
5 Decreasing bureaucratic red tape/power
The bureaucrats don’t get to decide who is “worthy”
My only condition is that to claim the UBI must be slight pain in the ass. This makes people who want to claim it expend some energy in claiming it. This discourages high income earners from claiming it.
I have lived in the UK and South Africa. The Uk with a social security net that although problematic is amazing compared to the way South Africa Dumps its poor in squatter camps. The costs of extreme situations/poverty are larger than the costs of UBI
I am 100% for the smallest possible government but I do believe those of us who are “able” should help those in difficulty.
Thoughts?
I like your points, but my argument is why do we need to have the government organize this for us? Why not independently pool our resources, since we are doing that through tax anyways, and the people in the government are obviously able to organize it anyways as well, and then we can gift what is needed to survive and live a decent life without any strings atttatched?
I think also that making it difficult for people to get this income might pose problems for people who need it to get it. For example, what if someone has no ID and does not pay taxes? Must they prove that they are poor in order to recieve what they need to live? Especially if it requires time and technology, because someone who is hungry is going to steal something to eat instead of waiting in line or trying to find a phone or computer to sign up with.
Great questions - here is my attempt at answering:
I think we need a central authority that has the scale to put forward a professional defensive army. Areas that are easy to defend (Switzerland or Austria) could have small populations and an army to protect them. I think areas that are near impossible to defend (Poland or Ukraine) would need many to band together for security when many band together you would need a larger coordinating authority (government) I would assume.
UBI is available to all that claim it it is not based on if you are rich or poor.
I would assume you would need to prove who you are somehow to claim it to prevent people double claiming.
If you independently pool resources and one community has a dispute with another who would uphold the "law" or would the stronger dominate the weak?
And yes some people will continue to steal, its certainly not a perfect system
at this point I would hope that people would be self governing and peaceful enough not to try and strongarm each other. That might not be reality anytime incredibly soon though. Also, if they are pooling resources to provide for the poor, they are basically charities. I am not really sure what there would be to argue about when you are giving, of course there would be boundaries and rules. Just no strings attatched.
Id like to see how this basic income takes form from the government.
So does your response mean that you are in favour of coercion, force and violence in order to make your system work? Democracy is essentially mob rule, where the majority governs all, including those who disagree (minority). So this central authority then has the wisdom to make decisions for all?
I am new to this subject so I am sure my logic is off in plenty of places.
I think we need an independent body that can judge between 2 disputing parties with an effective punishment system. It needs to punishes the party who harms others rights as defined by that society (big or small)
Without an effective / trusted body to pass judgement and an acceptable punishment. Many disputes would increase to societal violence/vigilantism.
Example - Someone kills someone I love and I know who did it. Without independent punishment I would seek to punish this person myself. Conflicts such as this can erupt into family on family violence.
Bullies of society will prey on the weak. That is the nature of a bully. If we group together make it more difficult for them.
For the record I think imprisonment is a completely incompetent way of punishing/rehabilitating anyone
I have a confusion here My Friend @tony10
What do you mean by the smallest possible governmnet
Also share your thoughts upon; Which form of the Govt. do you think is suitable to help those who are in difficulty?
I think the main role of government is to stop people infringing on other peoples rights as defined by that society. Government has far over stepped this in my opinion
I think a democracy that protects the rights of the individual whilst spreading the costs to run a society over those who are able to pay is the right direction.
Land taxes to pay for basic services such as police, health workers, fire brigade and a DEFENSIVE army/militia ect.
Natural resources taxes for Universal basic income. (In a country with no natural resources UBI is more problematic due to the need for taxation taking from the productive)
Off topic but I think it should also be illegal for religion to enter politics or be funded by politics- Religions will always try to bring moral arguments to disagreements and always fight for "their team".
Thank you for arguing the other side. The debate was very one sided until you joined. Perhaps you can look through some of the other posts and rebut some of their arguments.
First of all i would like Congratulate the winner of last debate and thanks to you for this educational contest which is actually sponsored by @FullTimeGeek
Well as of guaranteed income is concerned to me this is the most problematic and root cause of the societal problems. Such projects does not bother to develop the skills among the mass rather they focus on spoon-feeding. Life is not easy, everyone has to do the effort of his own how can Govt. can claim that they are not producing the Beggars by introducing such meaningless Projects?
To me it is basically a debate of Skill and Money. If you give money to the mass and don't make them aware that how it must be spent then all in vein but if you are going to develop Skills among them then definitely you're going to develop a very Functional & Welfare Society as a whole.
Thirdly, Such projects does not save the money of Govt. it causes corruption and more evil for the Poor. Such things make the people idle and useless for the society. I have read in many books of Religion and also in Philosophies books
So, basically here man is doing nothing except getting guaranteed income randomly.
How can he face the challenges of life then? Is not it creating disharmony in the society that Rich are enjoying the beauty of life while Poor are compelled to depend upon them? Is not it promoting Class-System about which Karl Marx talked?
Looking forward to get logical responses :)
I do think that the redistribution of taxes earned by extraction of natural resources to the people instead of to the state would be a much more positive move than todays system.
I think we can all agree that the state is by far the worst allocator of capital.
I also agree with you that redistribution systems are abused regularly by some of the recipients especially when the state has the authority to give you more or less dependant on how you jump through hoops for them. The state also consumes most of the money due their bureaucratic behaviours.
That's why the state must be removed from making the moral decisions.
I think Marx was all about state making decisions rather than the people deciding what to spend their money on, although its been a long time since I read any Marx
Well let me give this point another direction
To me the Govt. is the best collector of the Capital and also the best choice to distribute among the masses. Because Govt. knows where do invest and where is not needed yet because they look upon each and every factor in detailed by discussing it's pros and cons then they take a decision.
The point you arose that they are the worst option , Actually this is their Behavior which is worst due to corruption not at all the allocated Position is worst not the Govt is a bad option.
I see I was wrong we all don't agree that "the state is by far the worst allocator of capital."
If the state was the best allocator of Capital then societies where the state did have the control over the capital should have done very well. Communism and fascism had most of the capital directed by the state. ....
Indeed. It has been my position that guaranteed income only produces good consumers who are completely dependent upon the corporations for their needs. So the government is supporting their corporate buddies in making sure their customers can pay their bills. This learned dependency is extremely dangerous as we end up with multiple generations losing the skills required to be self-sufficient and independent. So how do we make that shift so that we can break those cycles and what would be involved to do that?
In my point of view there should be the involvement of
1-Educational Institutions
2- Political awareness is necessary
3-Religious scholars should come in between
4-Mass Media most important
Involvement of all these above factors can eradicate Poverty by giving the Masses Skills, Knowledge, Authority and Promotion.
Education can play a vital tole to build Skills among people.
Political Institution can create employment according to the skills given in the Educational institutions.
Religion can create awareness about ethical approach towards life. It can bring Morality and Brotherhood among mass.
Mass Media can promote a true message of the whole scenario in a very befitting way. For example by exposing the Govt.'s wrong doings and showing the facts to the mass.
In this way none is needed Guaranteed Income, rather they will ask for the skill development.
In a nutshell i would like to say; Make the People Educated and aware about the importance of a Skill instead of Money!
The irony is: Once an individual is independent and capable of providing for their own needs, jobs are no longer required. The only reason people need jobs is to pay the bills which is a symptom of their dependency. Once everyone is independent, the economy would collapse as we would no longer be dependent on it.
I think jobs will still be required for some people, no matter how independent we make ourselves . I will never be able to manufacture a laptop or a solar pannel for example. There will always be people who want to earn more and produce surplus goods. They can have jobs and work in the cities while the more independent minded can live on larger land and trade their surplus with the cities.
Well @wwf & @tony10 It is a fact that we just cant be independent 100%. Because we are humans the Social Animal we are born to depend on each other for both Socially and Economically just like the Barter System used to happen in the past. But Here i mentioned the name of Karl Marx who has huge work in the domain of Class-consciousness. My point is jobs can bring the Harmony economically among the Rich and Poor of the society.
@tony10 just just mentioned above
Lets discuss Dependency now , there are two concept of dependency in my mind
1- Dependency for Money on Bureaucrats
2- Dependency of Social Life including blood relations, Family etc
Dependency upon bureaucrats(Elite Class) can be minimized by competing them through equal right. Equal Rights in every walk of life for working class. So, i am still with this point that Political Institution can play a vital role here to create Employment for the mass so that poverty can be eradicated and less depended Poor Feel.
Dependency in relationship (Being Social Animal) ! well this can not be eradicated at all.
ahh, this is an important point that I missed
" So the government is supporting their corporate buddies in making sure their customers can pay their bills"
genius, this point I think cannot be overlooked in this arguement. Im writing it down lol.
wonderful discussion here, well said @salmanbukhari54. Interesting contest here. wish you best of luck.
i really aporeciated to @wwf for hosting such an useful discussion here.
knowledgeable debate organized by Sir @wwf. i am much impressed by you Mr @Salmanbukhari54
@wwf thank you once again for stretching my brain.
In this question you have hit another one of those issues that I have a near constant battle with my cognitive dissonance.
First lets state that the idea of government guaranteed income appears to be the very last thing that would be supported by those that want self-governance that when we tie our income to the government we bind ourselves to them.
I my everyday I deal with a large number of welfare recipients some truly in need, some in need only because they choose to take no personal responsibility , and those again simply enjoying the free money while having no real claim to it.
I have seen people receive $75k AUD per annum because they wont stop having kids, and others I would call unfit parents boasting that they are having another child to get extra pension when the government has already removed children due to violence or neglect.
I have seen those that have legitimate disability have to struggle and fight for every shred of help they can get and single mothers disincentivised from attempting to re-enter the work place because the cost of child care and the loss of social security payment would leave them poorer at the end of the day.
In short our current system is more than a little broken and a guaranteed income is appealing in theory levelling the playing field and providing a truer safety net for those that that find themselves temporarily or permanently unable to work.
There is a lot of debate about inter-generational welfare much of this issue comes from the socioeconomic problems but much also comes from the childs modelling of parents behaviour.
Personally I think that a Guaranteed Income is just a different strategy for the same old thing that is likely to have just as many pit falls.
What I would prefer to see is universal education and universal health care, a government funding of those things help people no longer require social welfare rather than a system that discourages personal responsibility.
This brings up some good points! It seems dangerously close to welfare in my eyes. Here in Canada welfare can be a nightmare, you have to stay on the phone for hours or in line for hours and waste your day talking to people who do not care if something goes wrong with your payment. Some people really need it and others really dont. It hasnt solved any homelessness issues because you need an address or ban account to recieve it!
I think a more human and personalized approach needs to be taken with poverty. I think the government is failing miserably at this, which is historically one of the governments prime initiatives, to improve the lives of the people.
You won't need a bank account or an address, you will be chipped. Go to any bank and get your chip scanned and walk away with your payment.
that is a pretty intimidating thought, yup! I think, that cryptocurrency would be the solution then. I can't see many crypto enthusiasts and anarchists being okay with being chipped.
I haven't decided if crypto currencies will help. The big four banks here in Australia have refused to deal with crypto's, so you can't do anything with them even if you want to. If people become reliant on crypto's, the banks will just say NO MORE - leaving the whales high and dry.
Even stacking has it's problem. There is a $15 mark up on silver. So an ounce costs over $30 and buy back $22 and you cant spend it anywhere. it's only viewed as valuable by other stackers.
The banks have to be careful because they can be left behind. People can trade crypto currencies between one another, completely bypassing the banks. The only reason people need banks is to deal with fiat currency as the government and most corporations don't accept crypto. That could change.
You're so nice for commenting on this post. For that, I gave you a vote!
This is a tough one! Living in England, we have a similar benefit scheme, but there are lots of stipulations that people have to meet to achieve this minimum income threshold, eg they can only get it for 6 months if they are out of work with no illness related reasons, they have to be assessed regularly to ensure their health issues are still affecting their ability to work etc. We do have a problem here in the UK with people cheating the benefit system, but there are also a lot of people who should qualify that don't make it through the process for whatever reasons, either the stress is too much or the system worked against them somehow. (There is a theory that the government basically rejects everyone on their first application, some people do not reapply, therefore saving the government money). I am in favour of helping people that need help. I think in this day and age with the amount of wealth in each country or even the world, it could be shared more evenly, erasing the poverty issue all together. In other words, there is enough to go around if we all shared and looked after each other. So I think ultimately there is a wider issue, poverty shouldn't even be a problem that needs to be solved.
How to you propose to share the wealth more evenly? Are you suggesting a taxation system, shaming the rich? How would that unfold? I agree in that the moment we ask one individual to 'assess' the need of another, there is room for corruption and manipulation. Many workers get paid bonuses for rejecting claims. Happens all the time in insurance schemes like workers compensation boards, health, etc.
All this wealth you speak of, what is it and how do we spread it around? Is the wealth actually money / currency or is the wealth land, resources, clean water, clean air and our capacity to meet our needs from what Creator and Mother Earth provides for us? If it is the later, then how do we share that?
oh my goodness, you do exercise my brain lol Well initially, my thoughts were that taxing the rich more heavily would be the answer. However thinking more about this perhaps money is the real problem here. After all, money is not a basic human need, but a tool to obtain the basic human needs. Following this chain of thought leads me to think about what our basic human needs are; air, water, food, shelter. So yes, sharing the ability to provide for ones self and family could be an answer. It would be even better if communities could come together and work as one within an area to provide for everyone. I dont think the government has the power to encourage people to work together or be kind to their neighbour, this has to come from within. How do you get people to help each other and share? I have no idea lol
That is the big question! How do we encourage sharing, caring, peace and prosperity? It indeed comes from within, which means the solution is in each of us, rather than outside of ourselves in an attempt to build systems to compensate for our own unwillingness or inadequacies.
Good morning dear brother @wwf!) In my opinion a guaranteed income does not help but makes harm to the society. Because every man is the architect of his own happiness. But if a person gets a minimum, he will not try to achieve more. It can even generate elements of parasitism and kill the initiative in a person. In the case you will be able to refuse from the guaranteed minimum, you will get independence. If you want to get freedom, you should be able to sacrifise something and to refuse from the benefits given by the state. To get material and spiritual independence, you should be able to refuse from the help of others. But in any society there are people who can`t fend for themselves, for example handicapped people. In this case the functions of the state should be performed by people of high morals and we should work at ourselves to become people able to give a helping hand to the needy.
If governments are not capable of resolving poverty, how do you think this issue can be resolved and who is ultimately responsible for the members of our community who are handicapped and unable to look after themselves?
I think we need to create a charitable foundation which will consist of people with high moral values who will be ready to help other members of the community who are handicapped. And of course we should spread our ideas among other people we know to make the community bigger and stronger.
If the community was strong enough and independent, people would have more than enough time, energy and resources to look after the dependents within their community. There would be no need for foundations, the state or any other organization. Why not support the community to do it themselves?
I agree that there should be independent people with good resources in the being created community and in this case there will be no need in charitable foundations of course because people will have enough time to take care of other members of the community who are handicapped.
No, it won't help.
Because 1 - in order to give back, money must first be taken. Taxation is theft. So essentially you're forcefully taking hard earned efforts to give to others. This should be willing, not forced.
2 -Inflation is a thing. They will have to keep taking more from people in order to give more.
3 - What's wrong with giving to your community with food/clothing items vs money? We've lost the community and now care more about giving something that only has value because we have an imagination vs. things we need to stay alive.
Do you think miners, fishermen and loggers should be taxed. They do benefit whilst pushing the costs onto society. Is this form of taxation theft?
If it isn't by express consent of the individual being taxed, it's theft.
As a side note, are they mining, fishing, and logging to get rich?
Because if that's the case then greed is a problem.
This is a very good read and everyone who has participated thus far should be congratulated for not losing their brains yet to the zombies. All jokes aside, I would like to tackle this question on a slightly different ground, seeing as nearly everyone thinks that basic income, especially government run, is not a good idea. I tend to agree with you on this.
This does leave me troubled, because there are many problems that need to be solved that we don't wan't any government to touch... or we just don't want governments at all. Either way, we have people without homes, people with disabilities, people with severe mental health problems, people with out families that need assistance... the list goes on.
I love the idea of a voluntary system. Where the benevolent people help those in need and no tax extortion of any kind is required. People are smart and willing to do their best for society. We can form boards and community leagues that can focus on making sure that everyone is fed, sheltered and well taken care of. If these boards run out of money, they can merely sound the alarm and many people will be happy to meet the call to ensure that everyone in the community is taken care of.
It is very utopian and wonderful to contemplate, in theory. In practice, all sorts of problems could come up. Do people care about others? Would greed be an issue? Would corruption overtake these boards?
This is kind of an aside, but it is relevant to the taxation vs. voluntary argument. I drove a stretch of road in the maritimes that was a privately owned highway. No government involvement in maintaining the road was required. Users of the road paid a toll and the road was taken care of by the owner of the road funded by the users. This is a great model as many people taxed to care for roads do not even own a car, and taxing them to take care of the roads doesn't really seem fair. This user fee based stretch of road would eliminate unjust taxation and charge the users of the road for its upkeep. It sounds great in theory. In practice, the road was a deathtrap because the owners of the road wanted to profit off of the users and as such, many people avoided it because it would snow and ice up and no ploughs would maintain the road. The government was doing a better job with their roads but were blanket taxing everyone in order to maintain the road.
In the above case, I would prefer the user fee based model, assuming a just operation and proper management. The problem was in the owners neglecting the safety of the road in favour of profit. Greed. It can be a problem.
I am in favour of a voluntary approach to wealth distribution, but there are many problems with that, which are quite obvious. I don't know if individuals are ready to take on responsibility for the good of more than themselves. I would love to see it. I would love to see taxation as a thing of the past. In order for that to happen people would need to take matters into their own hands and not create a disaster of it. I have faith in humanity... but I am not sure if I have that much. That being said, a government operated (where active citizens monitor their activities) might work out better than the best (in my opinion, voluntary) solution.
I want to address your road analogy. You made a comparison between the state taking care of the road vs an individual/corporation owning the road. Both scenarios stand with a single authority responsible for looking after the road. You missed a third option: nobody owns the road and all those who use the road are responsible for its upkeep. With the first two options, those who use the road have abdicated responsibility to an authority and as such, when things go wrong they blame somebody else. But if nobody owns the road and something goes wrong, it is the responsibility of the individual to fix it. No blame. Full liability.
The users of the road now have an interest in making sure the infrastructure is maintained. If they pool their resources and hire a guy to maintain their mile stretch of highway, that is up to them. If they do it themselves, then great. But either way, they have nobody to blame should it not be maintained.
However, this takes a paradigm shift in how we think and interact with one another. Steemit is helping with this training as it is demonstrating that anarchy can work but it requires a lot of shifting for us to see how. I do believe that people really do care and want to help others. I've seen it unfold and I speak to this at length within my blog. So I wonder if you are willing to entertain other options other than what you have outlined here?
I love it! That is the utopian voluntary paradise that I alluded to above. The paradigm shift that is required is the issue that I am having trouble visualizing. I would love to see it happen, but it is going to take people that are willing to take full responsibility for everything... ownership. Total ownership.
Thanks!